The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-07-30

more than twenty thirty minutes If this
has reference to the same time that Burton saw
him there, he could well have been there for
any other purpose than this work, as he forged
two sets of papers during that time, and he
| could not well have been there for any other
| purpose than the forg ing of these papers. MIR.
| Perkins also testihes, and Mr.. Burton's testi-
mony bears upon that. there testimony
| in the case not Buttons perhaps. that he bur
| toni went there to Smith Myers Coy
| testified that Smith Myers had not been there.
| and in that respect it is claimed there is a dis
| crepancy. Counsel on the other side claim there
| is q corroboration of Mr. Perkins. leave you
/ to determine this according to the evidence But
| roborating Mr.. Perkins in this matter. is the
/ statement about the Matter papers. He SAYS
that shortly after, some time at least after he
! left that room Coy told him that Matter had
| become frighted and changed his papers back.
| The papers are before you, and it is evident that
| that was done by somebody. strong corrobora-
tive item of proof in the
Perkins testifies that he requested to &c.
acid for some work that was to be done at
| subsequent hour in the day. The demonstra-
/ ton before you is that acid obtained and
/ used. That is strong corroborative fact: but
in this connection 1t is proper that l should call
| your attention to fact that in measure
| goes to the discredit of Mr. Perkins. Mr. Perk-
| ms testiies that ne went to DIR. Metcalf to get
| this acid. and that after Metcalf had procured
| the acid that they went to Metcalfs Office, and
| that Mr.. Metcalf called i'll the assistance of
clerk Mr.. Berg, believe his name is, and tried
the acid. Mr.. Berg has been before you. He
denied that part of the story. That part of the
story is. in a sense. immaterial and yet Mr..
Perkins testified to it. and it becomes
material in determining the weight and
| credit of his testimony. Why should he
expose himself to contradiction by Mr. Berg if he
was making up false story, is the argument of
the prosecution. He might just as well have
left Mr.. Berg out not, if he was telling lie,
it is argued, and why did he expose himself to
this contradiction The contradiction is here.
1t is argued on behalf of the defendants that Mr..
Berg is unimpeached a witness, and that you
have seen him and his appearance gives him
credit Those are matters for you to consider.
&c Nj TQar- Ivnst@
there and assisted in using the acid he would ex-
pose himself to the necessity of making some
explanation; but whether he had such expana-
ton or not, of course is matter know
nothing about He denies the transaction. It
is matter for you to consider for what it is
worth. Mr.. Perkins is corroborated in respect
to some matters that occurred before the
wasting board. which will refer to in another
connection.
roborated by the Independent witness, Senator
Morgan Weir who has testified to interview
between himself and Mr.. Coy which, if true.
shows that Mr.. Coy was treating Mr. Counsel
man one of the consprators who needed to be
taken care of in order to keep his mouth shut;
AID if you believe that story of course it is one
that goes very far toward establishing Coy'S
guilt in that transaction. All these matters
present themselves for you gentlemen, to weigh
carefully in order to reach proper conclusion;
and so far the case of Mr.. Coy is concerned.
l believe that is all L wish to say, except this,
that Mr.. Coy is not to be convicted here for the
sake of removing him from any position in his
party, nor is he to be acquitted on any such con-
sideratlon. He and each defendant in this case
must be convicted or acquitted on the proof with
regard to the particular transactions that are
charged against them, and all efforts of counsel
either side to bring to bear matters of preju-
dice, either for or against these men. should be
disregarded. and you should meet the question
a question of evidence with regard to the charge.
In respect to two of the defendants IN this
case and in some measure in respect to four of
them, the occurrences before the board of
vaSsers are quite material to be considered;
specially so in respect TO the defendants Bern
hamer and Span. and in some degree to the de-
PENDANTS Coy and Sullivan. But before going
into that as have already had some thing to say
with regard to Mr.. Matter in connection with his
papers. might we'll add here what 1 have to
say about him. Mr.. Perkins testifies that Coy
and Mattler came into Room 50 while he at
work on Hlseys papers; and that eithey Coy or
Matter delivered to him Matters papers.
and that be then made the change in
those papers. and delivered back both Hisey's
papers and Matters papers to Mattler. And in
this respect he is fortified again by item of
Confederation which l did not mention. Mr.
Hisey testiies that he received his papers back
through the hands of Mr. Natter another item
of important proof corroboratlng the story of
Mr.. Perkins. Now, what is the force of this
evidence against Mr. Mattler2 confess. gen.
tlemen, it seems TO me to be very damaging If
Mr.. Matter had stopped when his fears came
upon hlm-lf you believe the story that he did
become frightened and changed back his papers
he would stand before the court. indeed, a
guilty man, perhaps having entered into this
conspiracy; but he would stand a man who
Immediately repented and undid the evil which
u.
to very favorable consideration on that account
But he says before you that his papers remained
in his hands, after they had been for night
two, perhaps, in a certain persons custody,
which is conceded to have been safe, and the pa
pers undisturbed when they came back to his
hands. His papers were in his hands unharmed;
he says they remained there. and that he did |
not harm them; that he did not make the
changes. make the changes back. But the |
evidence IS too clear to be resisted that the
must be false. Either the papers were
out of his hands and were changed by Perkins or |
some one else or else he changed them himself |
and changed them back. So that, in any aspect |
of the case. ne stands before unreliable |
statement of Perkins and the corroborative
proof unmpaired. Not only unimpaired. but
fortified by the fact that he has come before you
with his statement to which You could hardly
give credit It is true that these are all ques-
tons of fact for you to determine on. and leave
them to you.
of MIR. Many to the effect that when Mr. Mattlers
tally sheet was presented for canvassing, Mr.
ures and that his attention had been aroused by
reason of Hisey's tally-sheet. And it is
argued that he would have been likely to see it.
I do not remember what Mr. Many's testimony
was; it will be your duty to remember it and
give it such force as it has or ought to have. 1t
presents this question Mr.. Mattler
had his tally sheet unimpaired he delivered il |
over to the board: now find it impaired. The
proof in this shows that the election was
held the I'd of November; the board of
canvassers met on the 4th; the
was finished on the
morning of the 9th; before Mr..
McLain went out of office. which was prob
ably at the end of ten days. the grand jury of
this court had issued subpoena and the papers
were taken into the possession OF this court
and have remained in the possession of it's
clerk, part of the time in connection with the
district attorney, until the present time, except
ing that the five sets of papers were taken before
the grand jury six or eight months ago and also
before Commissioner Van Buren,, and were
there examined. The testimony of Captain
Ritter is that the change in Mr.. Matters pa
oers not discovered until the sitting OF the
asst grand jury, the that found this indIct-
nent. OF course the argument that is sought
o be advanced to you Mr. Many's testi-
nony is that matter OF fact Matters
papers had not been changed when they were